The Apostle Peter - The Orthodox Understanding...

[Sword of the Lord]

...as compared to the Roman Catholic and Protestant understanding, in terms of the papacy and the first and only church. The Roman Catholic Church takes several instances of special attention given to Peter to support the Papacy, such as Peter being the first apostle chosen by Jesus (or co-first, along with Andrew); Peter being given the knowledge that Jesus is the Christ by our Father in Heaven; Peter obviously being in some sort of leadership role amongst the other apostles, but below Jesus, of course; Peter being given the instructions to feed Jesus' sheep at the end of John; Peter, along with John, performing miracles in the name of Jesus by the laying on of hands at the beginning of Acts; Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost; Peter, as well as John, before the council; but above all else, Matthew 16:13-20, where Jesus tells Peter that upon this rock he will build his church and the keys to the kingdom of Heaven are given to him.

Protestants understand Peter to be the little rock and Christ to be THE rock, on which the foundation of faith in Jesus that he builds his church. Catholics understand Peter to be the rock which Christ builds his church upon, which in turn is support for the papacy.

How does the Orthodox Church understand the role of Peter and Matthew 16:13-20?

 

[27B6]

...

 

[ArmyMatt]

St Peter's confession of faith, according to at least St Augustine, was that put him in a headship from within the Apostles, but not lording over them. St John Chrysostom says that anyone who confesses what Peter confesses becomes the rock.

 

[jckstraw72]

Christ telling Peter to feed His sheep 3 times is really not special attention given to Peter - its restoring him from his 3-fold denial of Christ. Basically, it brings him back up to the level of the other Apostles. but at the same time we do recognize that Peter is the prince of the Apostles - the service for Sts. Peter and Paul on June 29 speaks of him this way.

 

[buzuxi02]

The Orthodox Church doesn't believe a person's spirit is passed down into successive generations. Sounds more like a belief of the head of tibetan buddhism than christianity.

For us its irrelevant, the apostle Peter never played a role in eastern ecclesiology, the pentarchy was based on those cities which were the empire's administrative centers.

All bishops and even laity who hold the confession of Peter are 'Peters'.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I used to believe that and had heard that, but as you look at the greek for "love" in that passage, Jesus essentially is asking Peter, "do you AGAPE me?" (love me with a love befitting a God?) and Peter says, "You know I phileo you, Lord," indicating a more fraternal love. The passage seems more aimed at getting Peter to understand the proper level of love, the depth of real abiding love, to screw his head on straight for Christian love?

Christ telling Peter to feed His sheep 3 times is really not special attention given to Peter - its restoring him from his 3-fold denial of Christ. Basically, it brings him back up to the level of the other Apostles. but at the same time we do recognize that Peter is the prince of the Apostles - the service for Sts. Peter and Paul on June 29 speaks of him this way.

 

[27B6]

...

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Nobody in any area of Christianity thinks the "spirit" of an apostle is handed down through a See; even Rome has no such belief. They merely teach that the chair is handed down, the office. Just as St. Mark's chair is handed down in Alexandria, St. Andrew's in Constantinople, St. Peter's in Rome, St. James in Jerusalem, etc. There is no ghostly possession or haunting involved

The Orthodox Church doesn't believe a person's spirit is passed down into successive generations. Sounds more like a belief of the head of tibetan buddhism than christianity.

For us its irrelevant, the apostle Peter never played a role in eastern ecclesiology, the pentarchy was based on those cities which were the empire's administrative centers.

All bishops and even laity who hold the confession of Peter are 'Peters'.

 

[jckstraw72]

the first two times Peter responds that Lord you know I love you with an unconditional love, and so the Lord asks again. finally the third time he responds that Lord you know I love you with a fairweather love - when the times are good - thus he betrayed him during the hard times. He was humbling Peter to realize that he had not yet acquired God-like, unconditional love.

 

[jckstraw72]

Uh, Antioch?

well, he's saying that Antioch did not have the role it did because of Peter, and the original reason for Rome having primacy of honor had nothing to do with Peter - that is a later justification.

 

[buzuxi02]

Uh, Antioch?

Yes thats the proof.
Antioch was ranked third, even though it would have ranked first, if apostolic importance played a role. It then fell to the 4th place after 381 ad because Constantinople became 'new Rome'. Or as the canons teach, that the city that houses the senate and other political functions should be exhalted.

Then finally Jerusalem was added in the last ranking, even though you would assumed it should be in the first spot. Especially since it has the title of 'Mother of all the Churches'.

Of course the rankings do make sense, because they were simply based on the political importance and prestige of that city to the roman empire. Ironically Constantinople had no Church dedicated to St Peter as he wasnt a major figure. The first one was built late after the pope was shocked to learn of this. The pope complained to the emperor how it was that the imperial city had no church dedicated to St. Peter, so the emperor finally built one.

 

[27B6]

...

 

[buzuxi02]

If St. Peter and St. Paul had both died in Jerusalem, that city would still be low on the Pentarchy totem.

Thats what i mean, and Constantinople would still be the more exhalted and more powerful See. And make no mistake about it, it wielded alot more power and influence than Rome ever did between the 5th-11th centuries, precisley because it was he capital.

As far as ecclesiology, I really dont see any role that Peter's position or 'chair' played as respect to authorty

In 431 a.d., Cyprus was proclaimed autocephalous and was stripped away from Antioch. The Antiochans didnt like it, but even being a successor of Peter didnt help. Likewise Alexandria was the most theologically advanced, as it was the center of higher learning in the empire. Which apostle died in which city or which apostle found this church or that church played very little or no role, if it did then we would still be talking about Corinth and Thessalonica and alot less about Alexandria.

Peter's place seems to be unique to the region of Rome and her self-understanding.

 

[27B6]

...

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I mistyped the exchange between Christ and Peter. yes, Christ says "agape" the first two times and "phileo" the third time. Peter never is able to answer with the love he should, and it is a moment of humbling indeed....most likely.

the problem with the NT is that the Greek terms phileo and agape are not as concrete and clear as some think. There are many times in Scripture, in the NT, when "phileo" and "agape" are used interchangably it seems.

　​

Revelation 3:19, John 20:2, John 16:27, John 5:20 or 11:3,36, etc.

the first two times Peter responds that Lord you know I love you with an unconditional love, and so the Lord asks again. finally the third time he responds that Lord you know I love you with a fairweather love - when the times are good - thus he betrayed him during the hard times. He was humbling Peter to realize that he had not yet acquired God-like, unconditional love.